Pro-life or Pro-choice

[glassjester]

What is differs from person to person ...

So he meant, "meaningful to me" not "meaningful to the universe."

Anyway, I'm interested in his answer. He says unborn children aren't "meaningful to the universe" (whatever that means). I'd like to know what (he thinks) is meaningful to the universe.

 

[glassjester]

There is no possible reason other than a hatred for life to stop in the middle of any life saving procedure and kill one of the patients.

Right!

Imagine a firefighter who can't carry two people out of a burning building - so he shoots one of them in the head.

Insane.

 

[WizardofOz]

[MENTION=10712]The Horn[/MENTION] - you're dodging this one...

"Baby-killing is always wrong " . OK Doser, I'm sick and tired of the way anti-choicers indiscriminately use the term "baby " when it comes to the discussion of abortion .
A baby is a fetus which is close to birth or one which has already been born. A four week old fetus is not a "baby ". Since the overwhelming majority of abortions happen very early in a pregnancy, I can't stand the use of the manipulative term "baby " .
Children born out of incest are at risk of severe birth defects and all kinds of terrible problems which can cause lifelong suffering . Is it OK to force them to be born no matter what ? I think not .

:yawn:
'Fetus' or 'baby' is nothing more than a semantic variance.

It is a living human. This is an objective, scientific fact.

Under what circumstance are you OK with human killing?

 

[WizardofOz]

Right!

Imagine a firefighter who can't carry two people out of a burning building - so he shoots one of them in the head.

Insane.

That is a more apt analogy than I've seen here with the burning building hypothetical made by certain pro-choicers.

 

[kmoney]

Is it OK for the government to require the death of a pregnant woman who would not have survived giving birth and the baby would also have died ? I think not . This decision should be left to the doctors .
I'm sick of GOP "Gynoticians ", politicians who think they know as much as obstetricians and gynecologists . And these Gynoticians are mostly MEN .

You can't honestly believe that most abortions are because the women will die.

 

[gcthomas]

[MENTION=10712]The Horn[/MENTION] - you're dodging this one...

:yawn:
'Fetus' or 'baby' is nothing more than a semantic variance.

It is a living human. This is an objective, scientific fact.

Under what circumstance are you OK with human killing?

Calling a fœtus a human is also playing semantic games to morally equate an insensate bundle of cells with a conscious and feeling extant person. The question isn't whether a fœtus/baby is identifiably a human fœtus/baby, but is it a person?

I don't believe an early term fœtus is a person, so killing it is not the same as killing a person, but you do. This is where the debate is. Rather than claiming scientific facts prove the correctness of your position, you should be discussing why it is morally wrong to kill a person and map those reasons onto the fœtus and see if the reasoning holds up or not that the fœtus is a person.

 

[Rusha]

You can't honestly believe that most abortions are because the women will die.

Horn has been making that ridiculous claim for years ... and the women are poor argument.

 

[Rusha]

Judge Rightly, you father certainly knows that there are some situations where it's impossible to save the life of either the woman or the baby . But if an emergency abortion is performed, the woman could survive and have more children .

IF your claim is that the emergency is due to the mother being pregnant, why insist on KILLING the unborn child rather than trying to save the unborn child via c-section. You just go straight to "we must KILL one to save the other" rather than "let's try to save both".

 

[Town Heretic]

Calling a fœtus a human is also playing semantic games to morally equate an insensate bundle of cells with a conscious and feeling extant person. The question isn't whether a fœtus/baby is identifiably a human fœtus/baby, but is it a person?

No one differs on the salient point, that at some point that right to be exists and that absent conduct on the part of the unborn almost entirely absent in the consideration it may not be abrogated. More, that attempting to do so would constitute a crime, a breach of right jeopardizing our own.

If we understand that agreement and the absence of our ability to fashion a point along that chronological line of being that doesn't reduce to an arbitrary and personal assignment of value (however much we value it) then we must concede that at any point along that line we are as likely to do what we have no right to do as we are at any other.

In concert these two recognitions compel one course of action. To protect ourselves from doing that which we have no right to do we must protect that right in its uniformity of potential.

So it isn't really a question of "Is the unborn a person?" It is a question of obligation rooted in the two understandings. And the answer/remedy is as sure as we may be individually but cannot be collectively else on the particular point of vestment.

 

[gcthomas]

If we understand that agreement and the absence of our ability to fashion a point along that chronological line of being that doesn't reduce to an arbitrary and personal assignment of value (however much we value it) then we must concede that at any point along that line we are as likely to do what we have no right to do as we are at any other.

In concert these two recognitions compel one course of action. To protect ourselves from doing that which we have no right to do we must protect that right in its uniformity of potential.

Protecting the 'potential' of the fœtus seems to be a retrofitted argument designed to give the desired result, rather than a satisfactory argument in its own right. Where else do we allow rights based on a possible future rather than a specific present? Just because no precise time in the development jumps up as the critical one does not mean we need to pick whatever clear times pesent themselves in a black and white fashion. The alternative is to accept that the processes result in shades of grey, and allow judgements into the situation.

Traditionally, fixed times have been proposed such as the time of ensoulment, implantation, the quickening or birth. Each one choice is as arbitrary as the others. Moral reasoning usually to involve the desires and experiences of the person claiming or being awarded those rights. Why not here? What properties of an organism demands those rights to life? The possibility of a sense of loss, the fear of death, the potential to experience and fear loss or suffering? That is where universal rights tend to revolve around whenever there is broad consensus. Conscious suffering and loss.

How can you give 'rights' to clumps of cells that might become a functioning human yet not award similar rights to somewhat sentient higher apes or dolphins, who can suffer consciously and experience loss in a way a fœtus cannot? What puts a blastocyst above a chimpanzee?

(OK, I'm being deliberately provocative, but my argument stands. Which moral principle should we use for deciding which organism has which rights, and why?)

 

[glassjester]

Calling a fœtus a human is also playing semantic games to morally equate an insensate bundle of cells with a conscious and feeling extant person.

Every night, I become an unconscious bundle of cells for like 7 hours (ideally). Is it ok to kill me, then?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Spoiler

Protecting the 'potential' of the fœtus seems to be a retrofitted argument designed to give the desired result, rather than a satisfactory argument in its own right. Where else do we allow rights based on a possible future rather than a specific present? Just because no precise time in the development jumps up as the critical one does not mean we need to pick whatever clear times pesent themselves in a black and white fashion. The alternative is to accept that the processes result in shades of grey, and allow judgements into the situation.

Traditionally, fixed times have been proposed such as the time of ensoulment, implantation, the quickening or birth. Each one choice is as arbitrary as the others. Moral reasoning usually to involve the desires and experiences of the person claiming or being awarded those rights. Why not here? What properties of an organism demands those rights to life? The possibility of a sense of loss, the fear of death, the potential to experience and fear loss or suffering? That is where universal rights tend to revolve around whenever there is broad consensus. Conscious suffering and loss.

How can you give 'rights' to clumps of cells that might become a functioning human yet not award similar rights to somewhat sentient higher apes or dolphins, who can suffer consciously and experience loss in a way a fœtus cannot? What puts a blastocyst above a chimpanzee?

(OK, I'm being deliberately provocative, but my argument stands. Which moral principle should we use for deciding which organism has which rights, and why?)

There are several passages in the Bible that have direct bearing on the abortion issue, specifically dealing with the crime of killing the unborn child, and generally to the "pro-choice" battle and principals of life and death.

Here we go (from here):

Abortion for Incest:
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin. - Deuteronomy 24:16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy24:16&version=NKJV

Abortion for Rape:
Do not “do evil that good may come” - Romans 3:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:8&version=NKJV
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. - Ezekiel 18:20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel18:20&version=NKJV
(These verses also apply to abortion for incest and all punishment of the child for the crime of the father.)

The Baby in the Womb is Called a Child:
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” - Matthew 1:23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew1:23&version=NKJV
But the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If all is well, why am I like this?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. - Genesis 25:22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis25:22&version=NKJV
And He said to me, ‘Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. Now drink no wine or similar drink, nor eat anything unclean, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.’” - Judges 13:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges13:7&version=NKJV
“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. - Exodus 21:22-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22-25&version=NKJV
For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. - Luke 1:15,41 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke1:15,41&version=NKJV
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” - Jeremiah 1:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah1:5&version=NKJV

Crime of Killing the Innocent:
Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked. - Exodus 23:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus23:7&version=NKJV
‘Cursed is the one who takes a bribe to slay an innocent person.’ “And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ - Deuteronomy 27:25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy27:25&version=NKJV
Also on your skirts is found The blood of the lives of the poor innocents. I have not found it by secret search, But plainly on all these things.Yet you say, ‘Because I am innocent, Surely His anger shall turn from me.’ Behold, I will plead My case against you, Because you say, ‘I have not sinned.’ - Jeremiah 2:34-35 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah2:34-35&version=NKJV
“Yet your eyes and your heart are for nothing but your covetousness, For shedding innocent blood, And practicing oppression and violence.” - Jeremiah 22:17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah22:17&version=NKJV
For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands. They have committed adultery with their idols, and even sacrificed their sons whom they bore to Me, passing them through the fire, to devour them. - Ezekiel 23:37 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel23:37&version=NKJV
And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire to Molech. - 2 Kings 23:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Kings23:10&version=NKJV
“You shall not murder. - Exodus 20:13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:13&version=NKJV
He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ - Matthew 19:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew19:18&version=NKJV

Crime of Killing the Unborn is Murder:
“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. - Exodus 21:22-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22-25&version=NKJV

The Fetus Has Feelings:
For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. - Luke 1:44 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke1:44&version=NKJV

The "Breath of Life" and Life in the Blood:
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. - Genesis 2:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis2:7&version=NKJV
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’ - Leviticus 17:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus17:11&version=NKJV
Do not "sin against innocent blood" - 1 Samuel 19:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Samuel19:5&version=NKJV

Judging with Righteous Judgment:
Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.” And He said to him, “You have rightly judged.” - Luke 7:43 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke7:43&version=NKJV
Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” - John 7:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John7:24&version=NKJV
Hypocrites! You can discern the face of the sky and of the earth, but how is it you do not discern this time?“Yes, and why, even of yourselves, do you not judge what is right? - Luke 12:56-57 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke12:56-57&version=NKJV
Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. - Matthew 7:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew7:5&version=NKJV
Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? - 1 Corinthians 6:2-3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians6:2-3&version=NKJV
But those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, And a good blessing will come upon them. - Proverbs 24:25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs24:25&version=NKJV
Open your mouth for the speechless, In the cause of all who are appointed to die.Open your mouth, judge righteously, And plead the cause of the poor and needy. - Proverbs 31:8-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs31:8-9&version=NKJV
But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.For “who has known the mind of the L ord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ. - 1 Corinthians 2:15-16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians2:15-16&version=NKJV

Kids Especially Loved by God:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” - Jeremiah 1:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah1:5&version=NKJV

Love Your Neighbor -- Responsibility to Intervene:
Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.If you say, “Surely we did not know this,” Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds? - Proverbs 24:11-12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs24:11-12&version=NKJV
And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ - Matthew 22:39 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew22:39&version=NKJV
“And who is my neighbor?” - Luke 10:29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke10:29&version=NKJV
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’“Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt.Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? - Matthew 23:29-33 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew23:29-33&version=NKJV
“If anyone is found slain, lying in the field in the land which the Lord your God is giving you to possess, and it is not known who killed him,then your elders and your judges shall go out and measure the distance from the slain man to the surrounding cities.And it shall be that the elders of the city nearest to the slain man will take a heifer which has not been worked and which has not pulled with a yoke.Then they shall answer and say, ‘Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it.Provide atonement, O Lord, for Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed, and do not lay innocent blood to the charge of Your people Israel.’ And atonement shall be provided on their behalf for the blood.So you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you when you do what is right in the sight of the Lord. - Deuteronomy 21:1-3,7-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy21:1-3,7-9&version=NKJV

Made in God's Image:
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” - Genesis 1:26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:26&version=NKJV

Pain in Childbirth Resulted from Sin:
To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” - Genesis 3:16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis3:16&version=NKJV

Rights Come from God:
“You shall not murder.“You shall not commit adultery.“You shall not steal.“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. - Exodus 20:13-16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:13-16&version=NKJV
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” - Genesis 1:26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:26&version=NKJV

The Sanctity of Unborn Life -- Biblical Fetology:
For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb.I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them. - Psalm 139:13-16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm139:13-16&version=NKJV
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” - Jeremiah 1:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah1:5&version=NKJV

Science, Morality, and Philosophy:
God gave to mankind "the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness" - Romans 2:15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans2:15&version=NKJV

States Rights and Abortion:
Now therefore, deliver up the men, the perverted men who are in Gibeah, that we may put them to death and remove the evil from Israel!” But the children of Benjamin would not listen to the voice of their brethren, the children of Israel. - Judges 20:13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges20:13&version=NKJV

Vigilante Behavior Condemned:
But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. - Matthew 26:52 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew26:52&version=NKJV

Beware of Wolves in Sheep's Clothing:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. - Matthew 7:15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew7:15&version=NKJV

(If you need explanations on the above verses, or just want clarification on them, see the above linked site.)

 

[JudgeRightly]

Every night, I become an unconscious bundle of cells for like 7 hours (ideally). Is it ok to kill me, then?

:rotfl::thumb:

Excellent point!

 

[gcthomas]

Every night, I become an unconscious bundle of cells for like 7 hours (ideally). Is it ok to kill me, then?

No, because there is no moral equivalence between an early fœtus that hasn't developed a nervous system and a healthy person entering a temporary state of reduced awareness.

 

[glassjester]

No, because there is no moral equivalence between an early fœtus that hasn't developed a nervous system and a healthy person entering a temporary state of reduced awareness.

So because my state of unawareness is temporary, I should not be killed?

 

[gcthomas]

So because my state of unawareness is temporary, I should not be killed?

No. Your brain does not stop it's complex tasks when you are asleep, asks got do not generally lose your whole awareness, memories, desires and fears when you go to sleep. An early fœtus has no nervous system - if you're nervous system reduced it's function to that of the fœtus then you would be legally dead under any jurisdiction in the world already.

 

[WizardofOz]

Calling a fœtus a human is also playing semantic games

Not really. It is objectively true. It is a biological fact that a fetus is a human, albeit at the very earliest stages of development.

A fetus, a baby, a toddler, an adult, a senior citizen, et al are all descriptions of various stages of human development.

to morally equate an insensate bundle of cells with a conscious and feeling extant person.

Extant means 'in existence'. A fetus is certainly in existence, is it not?

Also, no one has to argue that a fetus a moral equal to a baby or an adult just as we don't necessarily have to make a person on death row a moral equal to someone who has never committed a crime. It is about extending the right to life to all humans and not just the convenient to raise ones.

The question isn't whether a fœtus/baby is identifiably a human fœtus/baby, but is it a person?

No, this is a question for a philosopher or a psychologist. This is not a medical question. It is also completely subjective and unverifiable so there is nothing to gain by debating it as everyone will have their own opinion.

I don't believe an early term fœtus is a person, so killing it is not the same as killing a person, but you do. This is where the debate is. Rather than claiming scientific facts prove the correctness of your position, you should be discussing why it is morally wrong to kill a person and map those reasons onto the fœtus and see if the reasoning holds up or not that the fœtus is a person.

It is morally wrong to kill a human unless in self defense or for a capital crime in which the right to life is made forfeit.

You try. It is morally wrong to kill a human unless...

 

[WizardofOz]

Born before 22 weeks, 'most premature' baby is now thriving

Courtney Stensrud and her husband call their fun-loving, spunky daughter a miracle. The now 3-year-old girl was born at just 21 weeks and four days gestation. "She may be the most premature known survivor to date," according to a case report about her birth published in the journal Pediatrics last week. Just after Stensrud gave birth, Dr. Kaashif Ahmad, a MEDNAX-affiliated neonatologist at the hospital and lead author of the case report, counseled her about the baby's extremely low chances of survival and initially counseled against resuscitating the baby. Stensrud listened as she held her 15-ounce girl in her arms, with the umbilical cord still attached, she said. "Although I was listening to him, I just felt something inside of me say, 'Just have hope and have faith.' It didn't matter to me that she was 21 weeks and four days. I didn't care," Stensrud said. "As he was talking to me, I just said, 'Will you try?' And he said he would, and three years later, we have our little miracle baby," Stensrud said.

 

[Town Heretic]

Protecting the 'potential' of the fœtus seems to be a retrofitted argument designed to give the desired result, rather than a satisfactory argument in its own right.

That's a feeling, not a counter. It's actually an argument I arrived at a long time ago, in coming to my own conclusion on the point. It wasn't arrived at by working a maze backwards but by a prolonged consideration of the agreement, divergence and reasoning involved.

Where else do we allow rights based on a possible future rather than a specific present?

It's a unique situation, and we preclude ourselves from negating it in potential because and singularly because that potential is indistinguishable from the vested right.

I remain interested in any serious examination of it. In the absence of that I'm happy to continue with a more general discussion.

Traditionally, fixed times have been proposed such as the time of ensoulment, implantation, the quickening or birth.

But that's not a rational basis for making a decision and is as arbitrary and subjective as deciding the matter by a roll of dice.

Each one choice is as arbitrary as the others.

Agreed. Only one choice protects the potential in every valuation.

Moral reasoning usually to involve the desires and experiences of the person claiming or being awarded those rights. Why not here?

Because it is a capitulation, not an answer to a rational posit. It's subjective in nature and we argue as a people that the right isn't. The foundation of every right is existence and the premise we advance as a people, in law, is that this right exists independent of our whim. Until we change that premise my argument is going to be a problem.

What properties of an organism demands those rights to life?

No demand is needed to establish a right.

The possibility of a sense of loss, the fear of death, the potential to experience and fear loss or suffering? That is where universal rights tend to revolve around whenever there is broad consensus. Conscious suffering and loss.

You're speaking more to what it is about life that gives it meaning and value to us. But those arise as a response to our existence. They are not required. We may not fear loss or death without either of those impacting our right to exist. We may be inured to suffering and retain them.

How can you give 'rights' to clumps of cells that might become a functioning human

A flaw in your premise. We aren't arguing about conferral, but recognition. We believe and assert as a principle in our law that we are born with certain rights, conditional only upon our existence and abrogated only by our actions. I note that as the foundation of law, not to promote its necessity.

yet not award similar rights to somewhat sentient higher apes or dolphins, who can suffer consciously and experience loss in a way a fœtus cannot? What puts a blastocyst above a chimpanzee?

Call it species loyalty or a fundamental recognition that we are in some measure, divine or else, set apart.

(OK, I'm being deliberately provocative, but my argument stands. Which moral principle should we use for deciding which organism has which rights, and why?)

That's okay, but I'm not advancing a moral argument. I have one, but I'd rather approach this across a bridge of rationalism. Logic binds us all, whatever we believe.

 

[Stripe]

If an individual is opposed to abortion being an option in all scenarios except for rape or incest or incest rape, is that individual pro-life or pro-choice?

They endorse the murder of some babies.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app